A Case for an Eternal Hell (Part 3): The Case from Theology and Philosophy
By: Brian G. Chilton, M.Div., Ph.D. | March 8, 2026
In the past couple of entries of my defense for an eternal hell, we have explored the concept from a biblical and historical perspective. We have looked at the texts of Scripture and the historical theology of the early Patristic writers, along with the four most important thinkers in Christian history.
Our final entry delves into systematic theology and philosophy. Recently, Kirk Cameron doubled down on his commitment to annihilationism (otherwise known as conditionalism) when interviewed by Frank Turek on “Cross-Examined.” Cameron, along with other conditionalists, often appeals to the loving nature of God when defending that hell is only a temporary state for the person experiencing it.
In this last entry for my series “A Case for an Eternal Hell,” it is contended that an eternal hell is completely justified with God’s loving nature due to the nature of divine love, the justice of lengthy sentences for momentary actions, and the inconsistencies of the annihilationist argument. Before diving into the final argument, I want to express again that this topic should not be considered grounds for heresy. Advocates of eternal conscious torment (ECT), annihilationists, and some forms of universalists alike all believe that salvation comes through Jesus and that those who reject Jesus will spend time in hell. The biggest question to the last part is how long.
I. Love: Does An Eternal Hell Lessen God’s Loving Nature?
Cameron and other conditionalists claim that an eternal hell lessens the loving nature of God. In fact, Cameron implies that this notion is what first led him to reevaluate the nature of hell. But is it true that hell in any way lessens the loving nature of God? For three reasons, I contend that such claims are exaggerated and untrue.
1) God’s holiness Is Built Within His Loving Nature.
First, God’s holiness is not distinct from His loving nature. Instead, they are two sides of the same coin. Theologian Thomas Oden observed that “moral responsibility cannot be explained except by supposing the existence of a superior lawgiver, a Holy One who is present and impinging upon our responsibility with the claim that we do the good we know and avoid the evil we know.”[1] God’s holiness is His majestic purity that rejects moral evil, while His love manifest as an embrace of repentant sinners.[2] As such, God cannot stand before sinful humanity, not because of any discrepancy on His part, but rather because His holiness would overpower the sinner. Therefore, it is erroneous to claim that God’s love and holiness are somehow distinct. Rather, God’s love is holy because it originates in the ultimate reality of the Trinity that transcends us.[3]
2) God’s Holiness and Justice Cannot Be Fully Fathomed.
Second, because of God’s morally perfect and holy nature, God is just in all His dealings. First and foremost, if God were to hold that sinners are deserving of an eternal hell, then who are we to say otherwise? We are not holy by nature. God is. Thomas Aquinas argued that our understanding of God is analogical by nature. He said, “Therefore it must be said that these names are said of God and creatures in an analogous sense, that is, according to proportion.”[4] That is not to say that some components of God’s existence are not univocal. We understand what it means to exist. Therefore, we can say with certainty that God exists. However, when we think of love, we only understand it as a shadow of what the actual love of God is like. The same holds true for God’s justice and justice. The attributes of God cannot be fully fathomed and comprehended.
3) “What’s Wrong With You People?” The Way Justice Works
Finally, it is often suggested that an eternal judgment is too severe. This charge reminds me of one that was presented to the late R. C. Sproul at a Ligonier conference. His response was spirited, leading him to ask, “What’s wrong with you people?” God formed man out of the dust of the ground, gave him life, put him in charge of creation, and this being from dirt rebelled against a holy, sovereign God. And His judgment is too severe?
Consider the nature of the justice system. If someone commits an act of murder, then the one-time act may lead to a life in prison. The crime only happened within a few minutes, but the penalty spans multiple decades. If a criminal act leads to an extended penalty, then why is it that an eternal hell is overdone when God is the victim? Considering that people are given an immortal soul (one with a beginning and no end), then could such a being be completely eliminated altogether? If humanity bears the image of God, then it would seem like God is destroying part of Himself. This leads to all kinds of problems, logically speaking. Nonetheless, the point holds that a penalty may extend years past the crime committed. Eternity is not overdone for a life of sinful rebellion.
II. The Inconsistencies of Annihilationism
Before closing out this article and series, I would like to pose a series of inconsistencies I find with the annihilationist, or conditionalist, perspective. Due to the limitations of space, I will not be able to offer much in the way of commentary, but I simply want to bring these questions to light.
1) If annihilationism is true, then why resurrect the condemned to a new resurrected body that is built to endure forever
This issue is one of the biggest challenges I have with annihilationism, second only to the issue of the immortality of the soul. In Daniel and Revelation alike, we are told that God will resurrect both the righteous and the unrighteous. Daniel states, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2, NASB). Now, I ask you this: If God were going to annihilate the condemned, then why would He resurrect the unrighteous back to life? Why not judge them in their disembodied state and destroy them afterward? The idea of the resurrection of the condemned makes no sense if God did not send the unrepentant to an eternal hell. The whole concept makes no sense in a conditionalist framework.
2) If annihilationism is true, then why not condemn and annihilate people right after death? Pushing the goalpost back.
The second charge is similar to the first, as noted before. If annihilationism/conditionalism is true, then why not go ahead and judge, condemn, and destroy a person at the point of death? Some would push back and say, “God holds the person to judge them before everyone.” But if an eternal hell is charged as going against the loving character of God, then why is it not considered unloving to hold a person in existence for a lengthy time before their eventual extinction? One could argue that Hades is like death row. You see, when we go down this theological path, we can continue pushing the goalposts back indefinitely.
3) If annihilationism is true, then why was it rejected for the majority of 2,000 years by the greatest Christian thinkers of all time?
There is no need for extensive commentary here, as the question gives enough material on its own. Why did Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, and other major theologians throughout history not also hold to the conditionalist viewpoint if it holds such biblical and theological strength? Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm are three of the most influential voices in church history. Yet, they all remain unconvinced and are wholeheartedly committed to the immortality of the soul.
4) If annihilationism is true, then where is the justice for those like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot?
The fourth issue I hold with annihilationism is that it seems to allow some of the worst tyrants in history off easily. Before Hitler could be captured and put on trial, he prematurely ended his life. He seemingly got off “scott free” even though he had ordered the execution of 11 million people during the Holocaust. How then would God be just by allowing Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others to simply cease to exist? Sure, the eternal nature of hell seems troubling for a soul who simply refuses Christ. But the script quickly flips when we consider those who have committed unthinkable atrocities.
5) If annihilation is true on the basis of Augustine’s version of Platonism, then why should annihilationism be accepted since it is based on the Greek materialism of Democritus?
Finally, Cameron and others tend to make Augustine of Hippo the bad guy. They claim that Augustine was misinformed by the Greek philosophy of Platonism. However, some commentators have also claimed that Paul espoused a form of Middle Platonism.[5] If we are to toss Augustine for his Platonism, then are we to also toss the Apostle Paul for his Middle Platonism? Furthermore, this charge is highly irresponsible. The idea that people do not have immortal souls gravitates toward materialism. Materialism also has roots in Greek philosophy. Democritus (460–356 BC) is one of the first materialists. He claimed that the entire universe operated through mechanical principles, even noting that atoms were the fundamental building blocks of matter.[6] So, which is it? Are people made with immaterial souls that are immortal? Or are people merely materialistic beings who have a soul that is only attached to their bodies? To say that a soul can be destroyed is to claim that it is somehow material. Therefore, the conditionalist has a major problem. Either they say that God destroys the person completely, indicating that either the soul is directly attached to the body or that the soul is somehow material, or they have to concede that there is an immaterial and immortal part of a human being that cannot be destroyed. Either way, both immortality of the soul and materialism have their roots in Greek philosophy. Hylomorphism is an option. But even then, hylomorphists, like Aquinas, argue for the immortality of the soul. Therefore, you cannot dismiss philosophy in an attempt to be biblical. The expositor must show which Greek philosophy best aligns with the biblical material.
Conclusion
This article and series have sought to present a robust case for the traditional viewpoint of hell. The view is named Eternal Conscious Torment because it holds that those condemned to hell reside there eternally. If I had my choice, I would wish to be a universalist. It would be such a beautiful view to hold that God reconciles everyone and everything to Himself. However, I do not hold that view because I do not find support in Scripture. Likewise, as appealing as annihilationism/conditionalism may be, I do not find the viewpoint biblically, logically, or even philosophically sound. Nonetheless, in the end of it all, God is the one Who decides what happens to both the redeemed and condemned. Seeing that God is just, holy, and loving, I will trust whatever option He chooses. And whatever option that may be, it will be good.
About the Author
Brian G. Chilton, M.Div., Ph.D.
Dr. Brian G. Chilton (PhD, Liberty University) is the founder of Bellator Christi Ministries and the co-host of the Bellator Christi Podcast. He serves as a hospice chaplain and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics for Carolina College of Biblical Studies, a Dissertation Mentor/Adjunct Professor for Liberty University in the PhD in Applied Apologetics program, and an Adjunct Professor/Dissertation Reader at Carolina University in the DMin program. Dr. Chilton's primary area of research is on early Christianity, oral traditions, NT creeds, the blend of divine sovereignty and human freedom, and near-death experiences (NDEs).
Notes
[1] Thomas Oden, The Living God: Systematic Theology, Volume One (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 167.
[2] Donald G. Bloesch, God, the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006), 139–140.
[3] Micah D. Carpenter, A Scandalous People: Ephesians on the Meaning of Faith and Human Life (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), Logos.
[4] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.q13.a5 (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), Logos.
[5] N. T. Wright, “The Challenge of Dialogue: A Partial and Preliminary Response,” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright, Christoph Helig, J. Thomas Hewitt, and Michael F. Bird, eds (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017), 754–755.
[6] Vern S. Poythress, Making Sense of Man: Using Biblical Perspectives to Develop a Theology of Humanity (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2024), 680.
